Political Correctness

  • Thread starter Thread starter rockford
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But they are not meant to offend, they are just innocent cartoons having a little bit of innocent fun.
People who are offended by them probably can’t take a joke.
 
I don’t think that’s a fair assessment in the least. People are perfectly within their rights to see what you think is funny as offensive, and that doesn’t mean they can’t take a joke. It means they see the world differently than you.
 
On the first one, I’ll agree. Using the definition you provided, the Simpsons is satirizing stereotypes and stereotyping of Indian-Americans, among a plethora of other ethnicities, (Groundskeeper Willie, the Mexican bumblebee), regions (e.g. Cletus, the white southern redneck), professions, (e.g. police, clergy, greedy CEO), sexual orientation (Smithers), etc. etc.

On the second, no, I would say they’re exposing the stupidity of stereotyping and those who stereotype.
 
Exactly. You’re welcome to see the world that way, and you’re welcome to express that. Likewise, those who disagree with you are welcome to see the world in their own way and to express that. The right to say what we think moves in both directions, and we all have the right to critique and challenge the speech of others when we think it’s important to do so. This is not other people being unable to take a joke or being politically correct, it’s people exercising the exact same right that you are exercising with your own speech.
 
Last edited:
Some of them were awful, such as the Native Americans in Peter Pan , the Siamese cats in The Aristocats, or the crows in Dumbo. I use these examples to teach my kids about how people saw things differently in other times.
 
Your quote reminded me of an Old Tom and Jerry episode which ends with Tom and Jerry sitting on some railroad tracks to commit suicide. It didn’t bother me as a kid at all.
 
It actually is the exact same thing. You can’t regulate offense. The US Army isn’t an authority - it’s an entity.

It is still PC gone berserk.
 
jesucated said:
Likewise, those who disagree with you are welcome to see the world in their own way and to express that
Click to expand...
Not one soul here has disputed that.

The problem lies in everything becoming a matter of conjecture. Literally everything. And that’s not how life works.

I’m not supposed to say the word “female”? Really?

That sort of stuff. And it IS real - not just on the Internet.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be missing the distinction I’m trying to make here (which could be my fault for not making it well enough).

If state actors cuttail speech through criminal statutes and prosecution, then this is potentially a problem (depending of course on the norms and laws of a given country) and a problem worthy of discussion.

However, it’s entirely different we’re talking about private citizens responding to private citizens. And, tempting as it may be, we can’t simply appeal to a slippery slope argument as that is fallacious reasoning.

In sum, people responding negatively to speech because they were offended is a legitimate exercise of free speech ( again depending on the norms of a given country) and ought to be protected and respected.
 
PC is “plain courtesy” becoming rude and offensive. It isn’t “plain courtesy” for right-wingers to launch a politically correct hysteria campaign against Starbucks producing the “wrong” kind of cup for lattes. It isn’t “plain courtesy” to impose speech codes on university campuses or “safe spaces” for people who can’t handle dissenting views. It isn’t “plain courtesy” to threaten people with jail or fines for getting their pronouns wrong.

Political correctness takes subjective and often arbitrary definitions of “plain courtesy” and punishes people who do not adhere to them.

Those of us who are Catholic are to go beyond “plain courtesy” and view every human being - gay or straight, cisgender or transgender, etc. - as an intrinsically valuable member of the human family made in the image and likeness of God. Our love of our neighbor is authentic, not driven by speech policing or virtue policing. Our job is to convey that love and acceptance of all of our fellow humans in a way that makes it contagious. Political correctness spreads only anger.
 
Here’s another example.

You have a cross on your desk, not in violation of company policy. Someone raises a fuss about it because they don’t share your beliefs. They’re offended. HR says YOU have to move the cross, because that person is offended.

I saw this happen with wedding photos once - because it was IN A CHURCH.

That is PC gone berserk.
 
You can certainly say whatever words you want to, but you can’t control how others feel about them. You don’t get to decide what is offensive to someone else, and I don’t see why it’s a problem for others to have and voice an objection to what you say. You seem to be tacitly suggesting that everyone should see things your way or stay quiet about it—to only be offended when you think it’s legitimate—and I think that’s a real problem (my apologies if I am misreading your intent meaning).
 
No, there is no difference.

You can’t go around telling everyone you’re offended because you disagree. It’s wrong. It is stopping everyone else from having an opinion that differs from yours.

That is my point.
 
I wrote a paper on it, but it wasn’t a research paper; it was more of a persuasive writing essay. This was back in 1998 (or thereabouts), so I didn’t have the DVD commentaries to use for source material, nor was there much on the internet about it at the time.

“The Simpsons” has long used stereotypes liberally and overtly. I recall the “Pin Pals” episode where Homer and Apu’s team were bowling against a team that was literally named “The Stereotypes.” After losing to them, Apu says, “They begged me to join their team!”

This whole hulabaloo does have me asking myself, when does satire cross the line from using stereotypes to make fun of them to using those stereotypes in a way that simply reinforces them? I can’t say I know the answer to that.
 
Of course you can’t control someone else’s feelings.

That’s the point.
 
It’s a no way stopping you from having an opinion. It’s saying that your opinion can be legitimately challenged by others who have a different one.
 
And with such a broad and ill-defined target (people who stereotype) how could such satire ever serve some objective purpose?

How do you determine that this satire has hit its target? In order for it to be successful it has to cause some sort of harm (through humor, ridicule, etc ) to the target, right? Do you think that those who stereotype actually feel the sting of this satire? I’d argue that some might but most won’t.
 
Last edited:
Joe_5859 said:
This whole hulabaloo does have me asking myself, when does satire cross the line from using stereotypes to make fun of them to using those stereotypes in a way that simply reinforces them? I can’t say I know the answer to that.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s a really fair point. I haven’t yet watched the docu criticism on it. And The Simpsons did go from being a satire from being a mere cartoon. So if the stereotypes remained without the nuanced irony, then I’d say it’s wrong to characterize Apu.

I stopped watching The Simpsons after about Season 8. It started out as an excellent show. Now I find it baffling that it won’t just die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top